Agenda item

Site of Former Fordlands House, 1 Fordlands Road, York (18/00495/FULM)

Erection of 64 bedroom care home, car parking and landscaping following the demolition of existing care home (revised scheme). [Fulford and Heslington Ward]

Minutes:

Members considered a Full Major Application for the erection of a 64 bedroom care home, with car parking and landscaping, following the demolition of existing care home.

 

Officers gave a detailed update, which was attached to the online agenda following the meeting. This contained a revised recommendation and details of additional representations that had been received since agenda publication. They also showed the Committee several images of the site. In response to Member questions Officers stated:

 

·        There would be a section 278 highway agreement in place if permission were granted and the need for parking restrictions could be assessed and then funded through this agreement;

·        The application was accompanied by a highway statement and the proposed highway access had been considered the most efficient. It was not considered that this type of use would generate many large vehicles; and

·        Car parking spaces had been angled to allow access to the site.

 

Mary Urmston, a local resident and Christopher Carroll her agent, spoke in objection to the application. They expressed concern over the safety of pedestrians and cyclists due to the site exit, access for emergency vehicles and the fact they considered the site was not suitable for this development due to falling within the green belt and flood zone 3.

 

Vivian Claire spoke on behalf of John Matthews, a local resident. He had concerns about the location of the crossing point which would fall directly outside his living room window. He felt this would severely impact on both his privacy and outlook. He asked Members to consider the relationship between his home and the crossing point, and to ensure this be moved further along the road. He also stated he felt there was insufficient parking for a development of this size.

 

Karin De Vries spoke, on behalf of Fulford Parish Council, to express their disappointment that this application had been recommended for approval. They felt that the wrong supply calculations had been used in the report and that there was not a shortfall of 90 beds. They felt there was a clustering of care homes in Fulford and Heslington. Finally she stated that vulnerable patients should not be placed in flood zone 2 and 3.

 

Kenneth Turner, a neighbouring resident, spoke in support of the application. He stated that he lived immediately opposite the site and felt that the application would benefit the community as a modern, state of the art care home, needed by the aging population of York. He also felt content that concerns he originally had over parking at the site had been addressed by the developers.

 

Eammon Keogh, agent for the applicant, explained to Members that there was a significant shortfall of care places and that this development was an opportunity to turn a brownfield site into a state of the art care home to meet the needs of the City. Flooding, highways, design and archaeological issues had all been addressed and all technical consultees had reaffirmed that the proposal was acceptable.

 

In response to Member questions he stated:

 

·        The dropped kerb/crossing would be moved as part of the section 278 agreement;

·        The highways plan had been worked on for several months and the current proposal was considered technically acceptable from a highways point of view;

·        National guidance was followed in relation to sequential testing;

·        The basement had been designed to flood and then to positively drain

 

Officers also clarified that:

 

·        Germany Lane would remain a bridleway; and

·        The revised recommendation meant that, if the Secretary of State decided that this was an EIA application, the application would be deferred until an Environmental Statement was submitted and relevant consultation carried out. The Assistant Director would only be able to grant permission if a decision was received that this was not an EIA development.

 

During debate Members expressed the view that the City did have a shortage of this type of accommodation. Given that this was previously developed land, and a previous application had been approved, this was considered an acceptable development.

Resolved:   That the committee delegate the authority to grant planning permission to the Assistant Director for Planning and Public Protection subject to: Protection subject to:

1.   the conditions set out in the officer’s report; and

2.   the receipt either of a Screening Direction made by the Secretary of State that the proposal is not EIA development or notification from the Secretary of State that he has declined to make a Screening Direction.

3.   The crossing/dropped kerb being moved under the section 278 agreement.

 

Reason:     The presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in paragraph 14 of the NPPF applied to this application. This was to the effect that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, or specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. On that basis, the main issue in this case was whether; having regard to material planning considerations, any adverse impacts of the development proposed would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole.

 

The application was for a brown field site in a sustainable location that was at the time occupied by a vacant care home. It had been demonstrated that York had an under-supply of good quality residential and nursing care accommodation.

 

A Sequential Test (in relation to flood risk assessment) had been carried out by the developer using a more restrictive area of search. This was agreed with the Local Planning Authority to take account of the existing use of the site for a care home, the identified and increasing need for accommodation and because the wards chosen form a natural community. As such, the application passed the sequential and exception tests.

 

Great weight was given in the planning balance to the impact of the development on Fulford Village Conservation Area. Members considered however that given the low level harm identified, the public benefits of the delivery of elderly persons accommodation together with the jobs that would be provided in this sustainable location, outweighed the level of harm identified.

 

Consideration was given to objections raised in relation to the development. However, it was not considered that any other material considerations had been raised that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development.

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page